Power and Knowledge Essay

Poststructuralism as one of the contemporary political philosophy gain its popularity because of its radical assumptions that veered away from the traditional structuralist thinking. The project of the renaissance scholars to control everything including nature through the used of knowledge particularly scientific knowledge did not gain much fame in this late century. Structuralism although it offers much in looking how institutions served as parts of a social system tend to believe that society could control the individual with the aid of science. However, the ideas of Jean Lyotard, Michel Foucault and Jean-Luc Nancy proved otherwise. The dream of grand theorists to integrate knowledge and create a unified social system is the very idea that most contemporary theorists avoid. Prior to the development of poststructuralism, discussion on power and knowledge is always a feature seen within the structures and not something that emanates from the individual, this structure-agency pendulum continues to fascinate theorists. Structural functionalists believed that social structures such as religion, culture, and government have strong hold over the individual particularly in their socialization process. Talcott Parsons (1951) for instance, look society as the social system divided by subsystems that have specific functions. Each part of society functions and creates mutual interdependence thus maintaining the dynamism of whole social system(Parsons: 1951). The Contemporary political philosophy opens a lot of venues in analyzing society with proposing meta narratives. Much of the themes of contemporary thinkers would be on the consequences of modernity, globalization among others. Topics on power and knowledge are just two of the basic issues that philosophers continuously are gaining interest. It provides a picture on how the development of knowledge transformed power relations in contemporary society. Contemporary political philosophy as it is advanced by the writings of three philosophers mentioned in the previous paragraph, look at power and knowledge in a different light. Before, the scholars would think that the development of knowledge is in a continuum and that power is exerted by institutions to the individual as if power has a center or a fixed point. In Contemporary political philosophy one can view that the source of power comes from various agencies,and the struggling character of power is in every discourse. Power is not only evident on political apparatus, on the religious order or on the intellectual community but power is seen on all arrays of everyday existence. Our day to day social relations are power relations. One of the contemporary thinkers who would employ much time in discussing power is Foucault. Some thinkers considered him as a poststrcuturalist or a postmodern thinker, because of the fluidity of his ideas. Moreover, there are critics who accused him of relativism because of his theory favors, intersubjectivity, the discursive method, discourse among others. Foucault (2002) did not suggests a central power or a solid one that one can see for instance in an authoritarian society, rather in looking at society, one could see ‘pockets’ of power or a decentralized one coming from various discourses. On the other hand, in his theory of knowledge one can see its deviation from Descartes’ Cogito. Reason as the underlying principle of the enlightenment period, did not escaped the gaze of Foucault. In his Madness and Civilization (1965) he examined that through history, madness became an invention that would serve as the opposite of reason. With the definition on madness as â€Å"non-rational† or irrational, it justifies the power of reason during the enlightenment period. Only through its binary opposition which is madness can reason hold its power. The control of the patient with the development of psychiatry in Madness and Civilization (1965) also served as a critique that looks at how modern society manifests the same features as that one can find in the discipline of psychiatry. There are various means by which society controls the individual. Foucault discussed that in the modern era, exercising power need not necessarily be brute and obvious. One example is his idea of punishment as a result of deviating from the norm. Foucault in Discipline an Punish (1977), discussed in what way torture as a form of punishment in the 18th century was transformed by discipline. With the birth of the prison, instead of attacking the physical body the institution inculcate discipline as a form of punishment. This feature of the prison, and even the birth of the clinic shows how slowly modern society is becoming more authoritarian and all of these are possible because of the different knowledge that people believe as true and moral during their times. Foucault in his Archeology of Knowledge (2002) look at historical development not in a continuum because he did not believed in a unified discourse as proposed by grand narratives such as that of the Parsonian theory. What one can see through history are various realities, are what he called discontinuities. Much of his theory of power and knowledge could also be seen in the History of Sexuality (1990) wherein he is not interested in sexuality per se, but in looking at the underlying struggle within the discourse of sexuality. While in the earlier periods, society repress one’s sexuality, this kind of discourse even propagates it. The more that society for instance repressed homosexuality, the more that people become interested in exploring the topic. In the History of Sexuality (1990)), he sees the reciprocal relation of power and knowledge. One example is the different meanings that society give on sexual relations such as relations out of marriage and the one allowed by the community. These definitions creates divisions in society, thus exercising power over the individual through social norms. By propagating a certain kind of knowledge, this could lead to a power relation between groups. The one who is in control of knowledge will therefore exercise power to the other group. However, it must be clear that the reciprocal relation of power and knowledge is not fixed rather it transform through every discourse. Apart from Foucault, Jean Lyotard also contributes to the debate on the relationship of power and knowledge. In his book, the Postmodern Condition (1979) Lyotard mentioned that the transformation of society into industrialized and complex system leads into the redefinition of the nature of knowledge. In Modern societies, the power of the capitalists to open the market leads to the question that, what kind of knowledge is acceptable or is legitimate provided that there are a lot of choices. Lyotard(1979) sees the complexities in modern times because when one looks at it, it is in no longer a question of simple legitimacy of knowledge but a question of who has the power to decide what is acceptable or legitimate. In addressing the uncertainties of knowledge, Lyotard suggests that one should employ the value of speaking the same language game. How can people speak the same language provided that there are various ways of learning things? Lyotard believes that one must contextualize, and in this part he adopts Wittgensteins’ language game. ’ By contextualizing, the person should be aware of the rules before making considerable actions. Lyotard believes that to be able to analyze knowledge in contemporary society, one must consider what kind of society it is situated. The split between Parsonian theory and that of Marxism will definitely help in looking at the problem of knowledge. Initially one will decide whether to maintain the status quo or radically change it. Because of the ability of language to bind society through communication, Lyotard favors this framework in addressing the issue of knowledge in the postmodern era. Greatly influenced by Heidegger on the other hand, Jean -Luc Nancy (1991) believed that we are thrown into the world therefore we should not rely on God for our existence. Contemporary society according to him is becoming more chaotic in the sense that the harmonious relation in traditional society is transformed into a complex society where there are a lot of uncertainties. Uncertainties are brought by the unintended consequences of modernity. With the advent of globalization, the closed and neatly tied community is transformed into a complex one. While some thinkers consider the development of society into industrialized one as beneficial, still there are paradoxes to this rationality. Nancy in his concept of community critique the grand project of some societies to create a well-planned system such in the case of the socialist state where it only leads to violence. Much of the discussions of contemporary political philosophy dwells on how you can locate the discourse on power as a consequence of the accumulation of knowledge. The Unintended consequences of man’s search for knowledge and the transformation of knowledge into its many forms leads to different power relations. These power relations are seen on every realm of life, on every discourse in society. It is crucial to note that in the analysis of power, power lies to those who have control over knowledge, and in this age of information technology where there is an easy access to all forms of knowledge, it is only logical to think that power is distributed therefore decentralized. While the contemporary era provide a lot of alternatives,undeniably there are consequences that not even scientific knowledge can calculate. Yet the quest for further knowledge continues because beneath those ideas there you can always find power. Various forms of power operates on every realm of life. These are the fascinations of philosophers of the twentieth century.